Deconstruction in Milwaukee Challenges and Solutions Kathryn Berger Senior Program Officer Milwaukee LISC

Background  Municipal deconstruction program for blight removal referenced in City NSP1 and NSP2 applications  Discussions about program among city departments prior to submission  For-profit deconstruction contractor/green builder was significant force in gaining support

Background (cont’d)  Job creation and job training goals in addition to environmental and blight elimination  After award, funding directed for demolition of city-owned properties  RFP for deconstruction of six tax-deeded properties currently out

Voices For Reduces GHG production Eliminates blight and provides jobs to people where they live Good opportunity for people with criminal histories Diverts waste from landfills

Voices Against Too Dangerous Costs too much Takes too long No real career path there anyway

Our Goals  Manage risks  Reduce timeframe  Strive for cost-competitiveness  Support career path development in deconstruction and construction

Barriers  Regulatory - Local  Insurance and Bonding  Compliance with regulations/nuisance prevention  Financial  Duration and Staffing  Training  Funding streams  Management  Expertise from a number of entities

Insurance and Bonding  City Concerns  Potential for collapse  Number of people on site  Duration of time  Potential for incomplete job, unexpected conditions

Insurance and Bonding  Solutions  Demo contractor partner provide bond/insurance coverage  City staff review bid requirements with work group

Nuisance Prevention  Concerns  Security of the site  Safe handling of lead, asbestos and other hazardous materials  Timely removal or storage of materials  Erosion control  Duration of the process  Noise and vibration

Nuisance Prevention  Solutions  Deconstruction Plan:  Building material inventory  Marketing plan for all materials  Storage and flow of materials  Provisions for site security, erosion control, neighbor relations

Financial Challenges  Can cost more for a number of reasons  Longer duration  More people  Trainees vs. experienced  Prevailing wage  Numerous funding streams  Workforce Development/Job Training  HUD  EPA  Private/philanthropic

Building Strong Management  Cooperative relationship with city  Nonprofit training partner serving targeted populations, providing case management  Local Demo or Decon Contractor – knows process, materials, marketing of materials, has insurance, bonding, and equipment and connections in industry  Experienced deconstruction management – tight scheduling, timelines, teaching techniques and process to drive cost down

RFP – Six houses NSP 1 Funding Source – Dept of Neighborhood Services LISC Leverage (OSI, Bader, NML etc.) National LISC TA Other Potential Leverage – Brought in as part of successful bid Training Costs, WIA $, Case Management  Case management  Supportive services  Work crew management Nonprofit 12 trainees (6 x 2 crews)  Permitting  On-the-job training Demo Contractor  Classroom hard- skills training  Skill verification  Pre- apprenticeship Certification HBI  6 houses deconstructed  at least 80% of waste diverted/ recycled/salvaged  75% of participants placed in unsubsidized jobs 8 wks. Transitional Employment  4 days/wk. decon. OJT for 4 wks.  4 wks. classroom & support svcs. Milwaukee Deconstruction Transitional Jobs Pilot  Scheduling  Project Management  Technical Decon. Consultant

Building the Industry  Deconstruction as a cost-effective, efficient means of building removal  Pipeline for deconstruction  Milwaukee Metro Sewerage District  Future City Deconstruction  Suburban residential  LEED Projects – only 6% of LEED projects use reuse credit

Building Career Paths  Pathways to unsubsidized employment  Connections with construction industry and unions  Connections with markets for reused and recycled materials  Reuse stores  Recycling operations  Small business  Nonprofit social enterprise to bid on future decons